Tag: tech

• How Bitcoin could transform home buying

  

  Earlier today a friend of mine sent me this Fast Company article talking about bitcoin and the future of home buying. I’m really glad he did. Both because I wasn’t yet sure what I was going to write about today and because this is a topic that I’m deeply interested in.

  I recently heard Brad Burnham (venture capitalist at Union Square Ventures) say in a talk that if you’re thinking about Bitcoin just as a currency, then you’re thinking about it in the wrong way. If you take nothing else away from today’s post, I think you should remember that. Bitcoin, and the underlying block chain architecture, have the potential to be very transformative.

  The Fast Company article was written by Matt Weiss of IDEO (the powerhouse design and innovation firm). Here’s an introductory snippet:

  Insert block chains: a relatively new and promising technology that could transform the way we digitally exchange value, similarly to how Internet protocols, like TCP/IP, transformed the way we exchanged information. For example, to transfer ownership of a home today, there are countless check of authenticity and intermediaries involved to insure the transfer is legitimate. By using a distributed database (a.k.a. “a block chain,” the same technology behind Bitcoin) to prove authenticity, we could legitimately transfer ownership immediately without the need of a middleman. In fact, when we think about block-chain technology and the industries it could disrupt, real estate tops the list. While Trulia, Redfin, Angie’s List and others have brought some transparency to the opaque world of home buying and home ownership, most of our experiences in this industry are fraught with incomplete, inaccurate, and asymmetric information.

  Following this, he goes on to talk about what it might be like – each step of the way – to buy a house using the block chain technology. There are even mockups of what the app could look like. I highly recommend you give it a read if you’re interested or involved in this space.

  The real estate industry hasn’t seen a lot of innovation. It remains an opaque market with lots of information asymmetries. I have no doubt that will one day change; it’s just a question of when. Perhaps it’ll be the block chain that makes that happen.

  Image: IDEO via Fast Company

  2015.05.03

• Lisbon is the new Berlin

  

  Tramway à Lisbonne by yannick le goff on 500px

  This morning I stumbled upon a blog post by a Berlin-based venture capitalist (Ciarán O’Leary) talking about how Lisbon feels like the next Berlin. In other words, it feels like the next great European startup hub.

  Here’s his reasoning:

  • The tech scene is organic – it happened on its own, came out of nowhere. That is much more fun and sustainable than any kind of political or targeted economic strategy.
    
  • There are a ton of constraints (funding, local talent base, etc.) so entrepreneurs need to hustle to make things happen. Hustle is good.
    
  • Berlin was an economic void, Portugal had a massive economic crisis and Lisbon sure isn’t letting that crisis go to waste.
    
  • Entrepreneurship has the real chance to be a center stage act, not a side gig. It’s everywhere.
    
  • The city is very, very cool. You just want to be here.
    
  • You can have a great life on a startup salary.
    
  • Everyone speaks english; everyone is welcoming and open. That matters a lot when you want to attract international talent and funding.

  Of course, he’s not the only one calling Lisbon the next Berlin. The EU also named Lisbon “the most entrepreneurial region in Europe in 2015.” Isn’t it interesting what can grow out of economic crisis? See PIGS.

  I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that Monocle held its first ever Quality of Life Conference in Lisbon. It’s a testament to O’Leary’s point above that, “You just want to be here.”

  And while being “very, very cool” may not seem immediately relevant to creating a robust startup environment, it really is. It may be the most important point. It makes the city a magnet for talent. 

  Just the other day I was trying to explain Berlin to someone and I used a similar lexicon. I said: “It’s an unbelievably cool city. It bleeds hipness. You will love it.”

  If you’re a city, that’s a great thing to be.

  2015.04.20

• Imagining the way things could be

  

  Old in new by Andrew Johnston on 500px

  I was out for lunch with a colleague of mine yesterday afternoon and he said to me: “Brandon, I’m really surprised that you’re so interested in technology. It just seems so different compared to real estate and architecture.”

  And I’ve certainly heard that exact same comment from a number of people before. But I don’t see it that way and here are a few reasons why.

  The common thread for me between architecture, real estate development, and technology is that in all of these cases it is about imagining the way things could be in the future and then creating it. It’s about change. It’s about growth. It’s about creation. And I consider myself a builder in practically every sense of the word.

  At the same time, each of these disciplines is about creating engaging spaces for people. Architects and real estate developers do it in the physical world, but many technology products strive to do exactly the same thing in the online world.

  In fact, a couple of years ago I was fascinated to learn that Facebook has and continues to draw inspiration from many of the same books and philosophies that architects, planners, and developers rely on when it comes to creating engaging communities. The medium might be different, but it’s still about people.

  Finally, as I’ve said many times before here on Architect This City, I think that the distinction between tech and non-tech companies and industries is quickly evaporating. Is Airbnb a tech company or a hospitality company? Is Uber a tech company or a taxi company? Pretty soon we’ll be saying that about many other industries.

  Maybe it’s because I’ve always been interested in wading through the overlaps between disciplines, but this is just the way I see it.

  2015.04.16

• Why Toronto-Waterloo needs all-day two-way urban rail service

  

  This morning I stumbled upon an interesting Medium article talking about the need for an all-day two-way urban rail service between Toronto and Waterloo. 

  The argument is that along this corridor sits a technology ecosystem that is second in size only to San Francisco-Silicon Valley and that current connectivity levels represent a missed opportunity of epic proportions. Presently this rail service will feed you into Toronto during the morning rush hour and take you back out in the evening rush hour. But that’s it.

  According to this report prepared by the City of Kitchener (which is beside Waterloo), efficient train service would stitch together an ecosystem of approximately 12,800 technology companies, 2,800 startups, and 205,000 technology employees. It would also connect 6 universities and 4 colleges, many of which are ranked top in the world.

  There’s an argument here that this is exactly the sort of thing that governments should be doing to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Rather than trying to be heavily involved in actual startups, they should be creating an environment that maximizes output and then getting out of the way. 

  I think this makes a lot of sense. Don’t you?

  Image: The Innovation Express

  2015.04.13

• Amazon Dash — foolish joke or disruptive innovation?

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMacTuHPWFI?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  Earlier this week on the day before April Fools’, Amazon launched two new services. The first was called Amazon Dash (see above video) and the second was called Amazon Home Services. The entire internet seemed to think that Dash was actually an April Fool’s joke, but it turns out it’s not. In fact, it’s actually an incredibly smart product.

  The way it works is simple. Each branded Dash Button is about the size of a pack of gum. You mount it in, on, and near things that you replace on a regular basis, such as laundry detergent, coffee refills, and so on. Then all you have to do is push the button and your order gets sent to Amazon. Shortly after the product arrives at your door. I say “shortly” because you can be certain that Amazon’s goal is to make that time frame as short as physically possible.

  I don’t know about you, but I could definitely see myself using this product. There are a number of essentials – such as laundry detergent and toilet paper – that I just hate shopping for. I have to create reminder appointments in my calendar just so I don’t forget. In fact, I did that today and I still forgot to pick everything up on my way home (my phone died).

  But what’s even more interesting about Dash, I think, is that it increases the threat to brick-and-mortar retailing and, more specifically, big box stores. Because if same day and same hour delivery is a big threat to big box stores, just imagine one button and same hour delivery. And, is it only a matter of time before something like this comes to Apple Watch? It seems like the right medium for it.

  Isn’t it interesting how something that most people believe is a silly joke could actually turn out to be a huge innovation? I try to always remain open minded. Sometimes it’s hard. But it’s good practice.

  2015.04.03

• “Project Snowball” cracks down on UberX drivers in Toronto

  

  Holding Pattern by Sean Arbuthnot on 500px

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  This afternoon I saw on Twitter that Toronto Police are now starting to crackdown on UberX drivers in the city. The investigation is called “Project Snowball” and they have already charged at least 11 people. The fines are anywhere from $200 to $20,000.

  My response on Twitter was the following:

  @mattgallowaycbc @GabrielEidelman @TorontoPolice @Uber wrong approach IMHO

  — Brandon Donnelly (@donnelly_b) March 31, 2015

  I get that Uber is a highly disruptive company. I’ve written about it many times before. But at the end of the day, this is not just about Uber. This is about a larger shift in the economy.

  The buzz term is “sharing economy.” But one of the ways I like to think about it is like so: Facebook doesn’t produce any of its own content, and yet you could define it as a media company. Airbnb doesn’t own any rooms, and yet it is disrupting hotels. Uber doesn’t own any cars or plates, and yet it is disrupting the taxi industry.

  What’s happening is that the internet and mobile phones are allowing for peer-to-peer connectivity and more decentralized forms of marketplace supply.

  What does that mean?

  It means that instead of having a fleet of cars or a centralized hotel building, anyone with an extra car or an extra room (and an internet connection) can plug themselves into the market. And that represents an entirely different cost structure for businesses.

  It’s worth noting that prior to Uber, Travis Kalanick founded a peer-to-peer music sharing company called Scour (1998). Its closest equivalent would have been Napster. Remember Napster? This is not a new trend.

  That said, I still think we’re at the early stages of this shift. I predict that many other industries will see disruptors similar to Airbnb and Uber. And so when I look at it in this context, I have a hard time believing that fining UberX drivers is the most enlightened way forward.

  I believe we should instead be taking a leadership position and trying to figure out how to adapt our rules and regulations to this changing economy. Toronto is not alone in this battle. But we could certainly be the one to lead the way out.

  2015.04.01

• Towards more publicness

  Back when the commercial internet first started to take off it was uncommon to use your real name online. Instead people relied on usernames and other pseudynoms to represent themselves. I honestly can’t remember what I used in those days, but I’m sure it was something ridiculous.

  Over time though that started to change. 

  Blogging started to take off in the late 1990s. And we started to become more comfortable sharing personal information online. Perhaps the biggest shift though, came with the introduction of Facebook in 2004 (over 10 years ago!). All of a sudden people – young college students initially – started sharing lots of personal information online, including photos of themsleves and their friends.

  But this wasn’t an overnight change. When Facebook first launched, privacy was an important component. It still is, but I would argue that it has become less central given how public a lot of other social media platforms are today. Twitter, for instance, is what it is today largely because of its publicness. 

  For my own social media accounts, I have made every single one of them completely public. From Twitter to Facebook to Instagram to Snapchat, nothing I post to social media is restricted in any way. And I do that because I believe we are headed towards a world with more – not less – openness, transparency and publicness.

  Of course, I’m not just talking about social media and tech. I’m talking about open data in general.

  Earlier this year, the Toronto Real Estate Board clamped down on real estate brokers who were publishing historical sales data online. Citing privacy concerns, TREB ordered them to stop or lose their access to the MLS system. 

  For those of you not from familiar with the Toronto real estate market, historical sales data for homes is not open and published online. You generally need to go through a realtor to get access to this data. Some think this is the right approach. And others think it is antiquated.

  But as I explained above, our conception of what should be private can, and will, evolve over time.

  Here are the details on my home:

  I purchased it in September 2012 for exactly $400,000 (Canadian). It’s a 650 square foot condo in the St. Lawrence Market neighborhood of Toronto. It has one bedroom, a 400 square foot terrace, one parking spot, and 10′ ceilings.

  Sooner or later, I believe this information will be freely available online. But since that’s not the case today, I figured I would just tell you. Sharing this information is not a big deal for me.

  2015.03.25

• John Maeda’s #DesignInTech Report from SXSW

  One of the most interesting talks that I attended while I was in graduate school at Penn was by John Maeda. 

  John operates at the intersection of design, technology, and business, and I find his work fascinating. He’s probably best described as a graphic designer, visual artist, computer scientist, academic, and author. And when I heard him speak in 2008, he was also President of the Rhode Island School of Design.

  More recently though, John has entered the world of venture capital by becoming a “Design Partner” at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) in Silicon Valley. But what’s really interesting about this move is that when he joined KPCB in January 2014, he was the first designer to arrive on Silicon Valley’s legendary Sand Hill Road. No other VC firm had a designer in-house.

  And that’s because design hasn’t, at least historically, been considered that important. In fact, in some cases it was seen as being detrimental. Brian Chesky – cofounder of Airbnb – has gone on record saying that when they were first starting out, Silicon Valley didn’t think that a bunch of designers from RISD could build and run a company. Boy were they wrong.

  So that’s changing. As of this month (March 2015), there are now 6 other designers on Sand Hill Road. The venture capital community has seemingly woken up to the value of great design.

  John Maeda has branded this shift, #DesignInTech. And he recently gave a presentation on the topic at SXSW. It’s a great read, particularly if you’re somebody who cares about design. Click here if you can’t see it below.

  //www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/kleinerperkins/design-in-tech-report-2015

  Design in Tech Report 2015 from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

  2015.03.22

• Why brick-and-mortar stores should be scared of same hour delivery

  Venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote a post on his blog today called, Same Day/Same Hour Delivery.

  The post is about why he believes that Walmart could get the “most disrupted by the Internet.” And it has to do with the rapid rise of same day and even same hour delivery from ecommerce companies. If you can order it online and receive it within an hour, why bother going to a brick-and-mortar store?

  His post reminded me of one I wrote towards the end of last year called, The threat to big box retailing. But since Fred is in the business of making bets on technology companies and he has accumulated a significant amount of wealth doing that, I thought you might like to also hear it from him.

  2015.03.19

• Are we becoming more or less entrepreneurial?

  Aaron M. Renn of The Urbanophile, recently wrote an interesting article in Governing called, Where’s America’s Entrepreneurial Economy? In it, he argues that despite the fact that there’s a perception that entrepreneurship is on the rise, overall rates are actually declining.

  The Brookings Institution found that so-called “firm entry rates” have declined since the 1970s and that they suffered a steep fall post-2005. And though millennials are often seen as an entrepreneurial generation, The Wall Street Journal reports that business ownership among those under the age of 30 recently hit a 24-year low. Self-employment has seen a similar downward trend. A study by Economic Modeling Specialists International found that both the total number of self-employed and their share of jobs have fallen since 2006.

  His argument is that outside of tech — where yes, the barriers to entry have fallen significantly over the years — it has actually become harder to start a company in a lot of other cases. And he specifically mentions two industries where he believes that is very much the case: construction and real estate.

  Why is that?

  Well, he cites a number of possible factors, one of which is increased licensing requirements for many industries. But the two most interesting for me are slow disruption cycles and the presence of large dominant firms.

  Real estate has both of those. 

  It’s also a capital intensive industry. And it’s becoming harder for smaller private players to compete with larger institutions and pension funds who struggle with “moving the investment needle”, not with access to capital. Real estate is no longer the fringe asset class it once was.

  In contrast, you have the tech space with fast disruption cycles and low barriers to entry. Yes, you also have large dominant players (Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and so on), but even they don’t have complete immunity in an environment where new ideas frequently trump access to capital.

  A culture of entrepreneurship across all industries is important for our society. I hope we never lose that.

  2015.03.16